Is steam or air really viable?

Discussion in 'Aircraft Design / Aerodynamics / New Technology' started by Aerowerx, Jul 17, 2019.

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes Forum by donating:

  1. Jul 17, 2019 #1

    Aerowerx

    Aerowerx

    Aerowerx

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2011
    Messages:
    4,687
    Likes Received:
    1,240
    Location:
    Marion, Ohio
    There was a recent post on a steam powered aircraft from the 1930s. And another recent one on miniature air powered engines.

    I was just wondering, with modern technology, is either one really viable as an aircraft engine?

    For air, you would need a large pressure tank in order to get any range at all. And a way to fill it if you are away from your home base. Or a compressor on board and some way to power that.

    For steam, you need a boiler and a water supply. And fuel for the boiler.

    Seems to me that neither would be any where as near efficient as a good ole' IC engine running on av gas. The only advantage I see is that the engine itself could be lighter because you would not have to deal with the N explosions every revolution, with resulting heat and pressures.

    By the way, the Tucker automobile comes to mind. If I recall correctly, it was air powered with a small gas powered compressor in the trunk. I don't know how well that would work when scaled up for aircraft use.
     
  2. Jul 17, 2019 #2

    pictsidhe

    pictsidhe

    pictsidhe

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2014
    Messages:
    6,149
    Likes Received:
    1,580
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ummm, no.
     
  3. Jul 17, 2019 #3

    BJC

    BJC

    BJC

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2013
    Messages:
    9,096
    Likes Received:
    5,903
    Location:
    97FL, Florida, USA
    There was a long thread several years ago where we beat to death the concept of a steam powered airplane.


    BJC
     
  4. Jul 17, 2019 #4

    wsimpso1

    wsimpso1

    wsimpso1

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2003
    Messages:
    5,664
    Likes Received:
    2,918
    Location:
    Saline Michigan
    The Tucker had a Franklin engine... Energy density of compressed air makes batteries look good. Steam is heavy and bulky per hp and maintenance intensive.
     
  5. Jul 17, 2019 #5

    poormansairforce

    poormansairforce

    poormansairforce

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    543
    Likes Received:
    114
    Location:
    Just an Ohioan
    I have looked at steam several times and it doesn't work.
     
  6. Jul 17, 2019 #6

    jedi

    jedi

    jedi

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2009
    Messages:
    1,718
    Likes Received:
    382
    Location:
    Sahuarita Arizona, Renton Washington, USA
    Ah! but did you forget the flat earth steam rocked guy that successfully built and flew a steam rocket. Don't underestimate the odd ball ideas. There is always a corner where they might have an advantage.

    His rocked did not catch fire and explode! But then sometimes a guy just gets lucky.
     
  7. Jul 18, 2019 #7

    Dan Thomas

    Dan Thomas

    Dan Thomas

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2008
    Messages:
    4,721
    Likes Received:
    1,950
    Yup. My air tools are driven by my little 1-HP compressor and it can't keep up to a 1/4" air drill or die grinder. If I had a one-horse electric drill or die grinder I'd have really powerful tools and there'd be no waiting for the compressor to catch up.

    Compressing air is an inefficient means of storing energy. The losses to heat are huge.
     
    Kyle Boatright and akwrencher like this.
  8. Jul 18, 2019 #8

    mm4440

    mm4440

    mm4440

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2012
    Messages:
    121
    Likes Received:
    21
    Location:
    LA area, CA
    Hi I met Bill Besler at Oshkosh some years ago. His steam powered Travelair is the only successful steam powered man carrying airplane I know of. Steam powered lighter-than-aircraft flew in the 1800's. I believe the rated power of the Besler was 150 hp and its weight/hp was 4.25 #/ hp which may still be a record low. Maxim's steam powered pre-Wright flight attempt's steam power plant was about 4.5#/hp. Some of the car and truck companies have experimented with Rankin/steam bottoming cycles to improve efficiency. There are gas fired combined cycle power plants producing electricity at over 60 percent efficiency by combining a gas turbine and a steam turbine running on the exhaust heat of the gas turbine.
     
  9. Jul 18, 2019 #9

    pictsidhe

    pictsidhe

    pictsidhe

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2014
    Messages:
    6,149
    Likes Received:
    1,580
    Location:
    North Carolina
    The heavy part of a steam engine is the condenser. Unless you want to run total loss, in which case you need a lot of water...
     
    poormansairforce likes this.
  10. Jul 18, 2019 #10

    Dan Thomas

    Dan Thomas

    Dan Thomas

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2008
    Messages:
    4,721
    Likes Received:
    1,950
    Boilers tend to be heavy. Steel, to take the flame, and thick, to take the pressure.

    Plenty of attempts at steam aircraft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_aircraft
     
  11. Jul 18, 2019 #11

    BBerson

    BBerson

    BBerson

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    11,538
    Likes Received:
    2,150
    Location:
    Port Townsend WA
    Flash tube boilers are light.
    A steam seaplane could dip down and skim fresh water every 10 minutes if needed.
    No problem for a fire bomber getting water.
     
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2019
  12. Jul 18, 2019 #12

    radfordc

    radfordc

    radfordc

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    Messages:
    1,170
    Likes Received:
    443
  13. Jul 18, 2019 #13

    proppastie

    proppastie

    proppastie

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2012
    Messages:
    3,592
    Likes Received:
    1,026
    Location:
    NJ
    For the Aluminum Dragon....powered launch glider,... the 15# ICE model aircraft engine is not the easiest to start but it is an economical purchase and totally off the shelf including the propeller. .....More money for an electric with batteries might need more weight for a 5 minute launch but would be easy to start and re-start in the air. A total loss steam or air system would need lots of development, and weight is an unknown depending on design....again we are talking a 5 min. launch so it is sort of a special application. The small turbines are off the shelf and easy to start and re-start....but cost a lot for 80-100 lb thrust.
     
  14. Jul 18, 2019 #14

    Jerry Lytle

    Jerry Lytle

    Jerry Lytle

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2014
    Messages:
    323
    Likes Received:
    107
    Location:
    Newport, Oregon
    "By the way, the Tucker automobile comes to mind. If I recall correctly, it was air powered with a small gas powered compressor in the trunk. I don't know how well that would work when scaled up for aircraft use."

    Already covered but
    Tucker used a six cylinder Franklin converted to liquid cooling.

    "Car production did not survive, but the name and assets were sold and production of air-cooled engines for commercial and aircraft use was continued by (Aircooled Motors of Syracuse). This company was bought after World War II by Preston Tucker. The flat-six engines were fitted with water-cooling jackets and used in the short lived Tucker automobile. The company was sold again after Tucker was disbanded." Wikipedia
     
  15. Jul 19, 2019 #15

    Pops

    Pops

    Pops

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2013
    Messages:
    6,773
    Likes Received:
    5,680
    Location:
    USA.
    Parking my 1953 Ford on the street in Pittsburgh, Pa in 1959 there was a different looking car parked behind my car. Was a Tucker. Only one I ever seen.
     
  16. Jul 19, 2019 #16

    Dan Thomas

    Dan Thomas

    Dan Thomas

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2008
    Messages:
    4,721
    Likes Received:
    1,950
    Lycoming built engines for Cord, Auburn and Duesenberg cars from about 1918 to 1937. They didn't look like aircraft engines. Lyc's first aircraft engine was a radial, in 1929.

    Continenetal also built engines for vehicles and industrial machinery. My Dad had a 1959 Rambler American that had an inline four Continental with a magneto for ignition. A troublesome beast, that was.
     
  17. Jul 19, 2019 #17

    Dan Thomas

    Dan Thomas

    Dan Thomas

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2008
    Messages:
    4,721
    Likes Received:
    1,950
    Bill Lear's steam engine he was designing for automobiles used "Learium," an unknown fluid that some suspect was a chlorofluorcarbon like Freon. A closed system, of course, and probably a light fluid and a minimal volume of it.
     
  18. Jul 19, 2019 #18

    Pops

    Pops

    Pops

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2013
    Messages:
    6,773
    Likes Received:
    5,680
    Location:
    USA.
    My 1968 MF farm tractor has a Continental engine. I have drove a 1937 Graham Hollywood. It had a Continental. My father bought a new 1938.
     
  19. Jul 19, 2019 #19

    BBerson

    BBerson

    BBerson

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    11,538
    Likes Received:
    2,150
    Location:
    Port Townsend WA
    This says Lear abandoned "Learium" and went back to water. https://www.hemmings.com/blog/2011/06/07/gettin-steamed-on-the-bus/
     
  20. Jul 19, 2019 #20

    Sockmonkey

    Sockmonkey

    Sockmonkey

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2014
    Messages:
    1,599
    Likes Received:
    408
    Location:
    Flint, Mi, USA
    If you're flying over freshwater lakes and rivers you could, (seawater is a huge no-no) but that water still needs to be filtered and purified. Contaminants will build up otherwise.

    Steam works far better in cars than planes for two main reasons.
    First is obviously the higher acceptable weight limit.
    Second is that with the right setup, you can eliminate most of the heavy and complex drivetrain regular cars use. Planes don't have that in the first place so there that advantage is wasted.
    Steam pistons are fantastic at delivering instant high torque at low speeds, and many can run backwards if the valves are set up to allow it. That makes it possible to connect the crank straight to the differential with no transmission, driveshaft, or clutch needed.
    Using a pair of double-acting pistons in a V-twin arrangement gives the same smooth torque output that you would get from an inline eight-cylinder, and you only need a single-throw crank.
    So overall, it's not less complex in that you want a condenser and all the other stuff to make the steam, but the complex bits are at the other end of the line between the fuel tank and the wheels.
     
    pictsidhe likes this.

Share This Page

arrow_white